Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Vaga And Ors vs State on 27 April, 2022
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 201/2000
Vaga And Ors
----Petitioner
Versus
State
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abhishek Charan
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sumer Singh Rajpurohit, PP
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order
27/04/2022
1. In the wake of instant surge in COVID - 19 cases and spread
of its highly infectious Omicron variant, abundant caution is being
maintained, while hearing the matters in the Court, for the safety
of all concerned.
2. The matter pertains to an incident which occurred in the year
1992 and the present criminal revision has been pending since the
year 2000.
3. This criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with
Section 401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the judgment
dated 24.04.2000 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Jalore in
Criminal Appeal No.59/96, whereby the judgment dated
31.07.1996 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Jalore in Criminal Original Case No.305/92, convicting
the revisionist-petitioners was upheld. The petitioners were
convicted for the offence under Section 148 IPC and were
sentenced to undergo one year R.I. and a fine of Rs.500/-, in
(Downloaded on 28/04/2022 at 08:48:55 PM)
(2 of 3) [CRLR-201/2000]
default of payment of which, they were to undergo further three
months S.I.; under Section 447 IPC and the petitioners were
sentenced to undergo one month R.I. and a fine of Rs.300/-, in
default of payment of which, they were to undergo further 15 days
S.I.; under Section 323/149 IPC and the petitioners were
sentenced to undergo six months R.I. and a fine of Rs.500/-, in
default of payment of which, they were to undergo further one
month S.I.; and under Section 325/149 IPC and the petitioners
were sentenced to undergo two years R.I. and a fine of Rs.1000/-,
in default of payment of which, they were to undergo further three
months S.I.
4. Learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioners further
submits that the sentence so awarded to the revisionist-
petitioners was suspended by this Hon'ble Court, vide order dated
21.06.2000.
5. Learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioners, however,
makes a limited submission that without making any interference
on merits/conviction, the sentence awarded to the present
revisionist-petitioners may be substituted with the period of
sentence already undergone by them.
6. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the same.
7. This Court is conscious of the judgments rendered in,
Alister Anthony Pareira Vs. State of Maharashtra (2012) 2
SCC 648 and Haripada Das Vs. State of W.B. (1998) 9 SCC
678 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:-
Alister Anthony Pareira (Supra)
"There is no straitjacket formula for sentencing an accused
on proof of crime. The courts have evolved certain
(Downloaded on 28/04/2022 at 08:48:55 PM)
(3 of 3) [CRLR-201/2000]
principles: twin objective of the sentencing policy is
deterrence and correction. What sentence would meet the
ends of justice depends on the facts and circumstances of
each case and the court must keep in mind the gravity of
the crime, motive for the crime, nature of the offence and all
other attendant circumstances."
Haripada Das (Supra)
"...considering the fact that the respondent had already
undergone detention for some period and the case is
pending for a pretty long time for which he had suffered
both financial hardship and mental agony and also
considering the fact that he had been released on bail as far
back as on 17-1-1986, we feel that the ends of justice will
be met in the facts of the case if the sentence is reduced to
the period already undergone..."
8. In light of the limited prayer made on behalf of the
petitioners, and keeping in mind the aforementioned precedent
laws, the present petition is partly allowed. Accordingly, while
maintaining the conviction of the petitioners for the offences under
Sections 148, 447, 323/149 & 325/149 IPC, the sentence awarded
to them is reduced to the period already undergone by them. The
petitioners are on bail. They need not surrender. Their bail bonds
stand discharged accordingly.
9. All pending applications stand disposed of. Record of the
learned below be sent back forthwith.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.
47-Zeeshan
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
